Stone Cold: Mueller Wins Key Legal Challenge To His Authority As Special Counsel

440px-Director_Robert_S._Mueller-_IIIFor over a year, there has been an ongoing debate over the constitutionality of the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel.  The claim is that Mueller constitutes a “principal officer” who should be nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate.  Instead, defenders claim Mueller is an “inferior officer” who does not require such a process. Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia just gave Mueller an impressive legal victory in an opinion that swept aside this and two other fundamental challenges to the Special Counsel.  The decision came as part of the grand jury investigation into Trump confidant Roger Stone.

While there are good-faith arguments that Mueller is no inferior officer given the sweeping nature of his mandate, I have previously expressed great skepticism of the viability of these challenges in light of the prior decision of the Court in Morrison v. Olson, which upheld the constitutionality of the Independent Counsel Act.  That Act was allowed by Congress to lapse but the special counsel procedure is, if anything, stronger than the ICA since Mueller is squarely within the Justice Department and subject to its chain of command.  This of course could well change with the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.  Kavanaugh is a long critic of Morrison.  However, his past writings do not clearly establish that he would rule a Special Counsel to be a principal officer.  However, this challenge is clearly designed to move up to the Supreme Court where Morrison is considered an endangered precedent, even before the expected addition of Kavanaugh.


The challenge was brought by the aide to Stone, Andrew Miller. His able counsel pressed three attacks on the Mueller’s authority under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, U.S. CONST. art. II, §2, cl. 2.  First, they claimed that the Special Counsel is a principal rather than inferior officer. If Mueller is a principle officer, he must be nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate.  Second, they argued that  no statute authorized the Special Counsel’s appointment. Finally, they argued that Rosenstein lacked authority to appoint Mueller.  It was the first argument that has attracted the most academic interest but Mueller swept the table on all three challenges.

While many have portrayed Kavanaugh’s concerns about Morrison as a partisan issue, it is not.  As the Court stated in Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 660 (1997) “[T]he Appointments Clause was designed to ensure public accountability for both the
making of a bad appointment and the rejection of a good one.”  The clause guarantees care and accountability in the selection of these powerful individuals.  This concern was magnified for many in the appointment of Robert Mueller, who has been criticized by Trump and others as having conflicts of interest in his position.  Indeed, when Mueller was appointed, I expressed surprise that he was even on the list and I have maintained that both Mueller and Rosenstein have conflicts.  However, I supported the appointment of a Special Counsel and I believe Mueller should be allowed to finish his work unimpeded.

The 92-page ruling by Chief Judge Beryl Howell gave Mueller a ringing victory that could be cited in other jurisdictions as persuasive authority.  She ruled that the “scope of the Special Counsel’s power falls well within the boundaries the Constitution permits.”

Howell found Mueller to be an “inferior officer” given the supervision of deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein.  That is a much more solid constitutional footprint than the earlier Independent Counsels.  “His appointment, without presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation, thus did not violate the Appointments Clause.”
On the first question, Howell wrote:

Edmond clarified that the first of these factors—whether an officer is “subject to removal by a higher . . . official”—is by far the most important to a Court’s determination of principal-inferior status, while reformulating that factor into a broader inquiry into whether an officer’s “work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate.” 520 U.S. at 663. “Generally speaking,” Edmond explained, “the term ‘inferior officer’ connotes a relationship with some higher ranking officer or officers below the President: Whether one is an ‘inferior’ officer depends on whether he has a superior.” Id. at 662; accord Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (“PCAOB”), 561 U.S. 477, 510 (2010) (applying Edmond to conclude that officials were inferior rather than principal due to the agency’s “oversight authority” and “power to remove . . . at will”).11 Indeed, Edmond held that an officer with a presidentially-nominated, Senate-confirmed superior is inferior even if all three other Morrison factors—the magnitude of an officer’s duties,

jurisdiction, and tenure—weigh toward principal officer status. 520 U.S. at 661–62 (concluding that a Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals judge was an inferior officer despite that “the last two [Morrison factors—limited jurisdiction and tenure] do not hold . . . here” and that such judges “are charged with exercising significant authority on behalf of the United States”).

The witness contends that the Special Counsel is a principal officer who was neither
nominated by the President nor confirmed by the Senate, and thus was unconstitutionally appointed. See Witness’s Mot. at 14. As explained in more detail below, however, the Attorney General has ample legal authority to “direct[] and supervis[e]” the Special Counsel, which makes the Special Counsel an inferior officer. Edmond, 520 U.S. at 663. To the extent relevant, theremaining three Morrison factors each weigh in favor of inferior officer status. Nor does thebreadth of the authority the Special Counsel wields negate his inferior officer status. The witness’s argument that the Special Counsel is a principal officer thus does not pass muster.
Here is the opinion:  the Mueller/Miller Opinion

363 thoughts on “Stone Cold: Mueller Wins Key Legal Challenge To His Authority As Special Counsel”

  1. “FBI Continued Working w/Steele After Supposedly Dumping Him

    “Dumped” in this case is rather relative. And appeared to have more to do with plausible deniability than ethics.

    The FBI had to be well aware that Steele was in contact with the media. Even after ties with Steele were supposedly cut, FBI brass insisted that Steele was reliable. And now, as we see in the latest piece by John Solomon, the ties still remain strong courtesy of the DOJ’s Bruce Ohr whose wife was working against Trump for Fusion GPS.

    It’s not turtles all the way down. It’s plausible deniability all the way down.

    And a guy whose wife was employed by Fusion GPS was being interviewed by the FBI as a way of passing material from a Fusion GPS hiree to the FBI. This reeking swamp badly needs draining.”

  2. Nellie Ohr, Fusion GPS, FISA “Dossier” Warrant, Bruce Ohr, Sally Yates, Christopher Steele, Hillary Clinton, Robert Mueller, Barack Obama star in

    “Counter-Intelligence or Democrat/Hillary Political Opposition Research.”

    Coming soon to a Congressional investigation near you.


    Oh, oh!

    Looks like I hit a nerve.

    The truth of the most prodigious scandal in American political history is unfolding before our very eyes and the communists (i.e.

    democrats, progressives, liberals, socialists) are trying their best to produce a massive smoke screen by conducting a fraudulent

    “malicious prosecution.”

    Something tells me that the truth will out.

    Has anyone noticed that Google and Facebook are now taking orders from the Communist Chinese?

    The ultimate goal of the democrats, progressives, liberals and socialists is to nullify the Constitution and impose communism.

    Democrats, liberals, progressives and socialists will remove their costumes any day.

    The “Nouveau Communiste.”

    1. Haha. You forgot the trilateral commission, Roswell coverup, Grassy Knoll and your meds.

      This is to “Who knew infowars had a neato app” crazy georgie

      1. Marky Mark Mark – you do know the Trilateral Commission does exist?

      2. Marky Mark Mark – evidently twice the number of people who watch his YouTube site have joined Alex Jones on Bit Chute and on his app. He can thank all those liberals, including you, for making him a martyr.

    1. thank you OKY that’s just the kind of prosecution that helps protect the public against the menace of interstate trafficking in harmless herbs! a threat to public order decency and health.

  3. “The Trump boom even the media can’t ignore

    Last week’s jobs report has shined a light on the incredible gains American workers are seeing in the Trump Economy. The media, both liberal and conservative, can’t ignore the story of this remarkable turnaround:

    • THE NEW YORK TIMES: Workers Hardest Hit by Recession Are Joining in Recovery

    • FOX BUSINESS: Millions Drop Off Food Stamps

    • THE HILL: Employment Data Hasn’t Been This Good Since the Days of the iPod

    • CHICAGO TRIBUNE: This Is What a Booming Economy Feels Like

    Unemployment dipped to 3.9 percent last week—just the eighth time since 1970 it has fallen below 4 percent. (And nearly half of those occasions happened in 2018.)

    Most important is who is benefitting. President Donald J. Trump promised to look out for Americans from every corner of the country, not the well-connected and powerful. He’s delivered. “The least educated American workers, who took the hardest hit in the Great Recession . . . are a striking symbol of a strong economy,” The New York Times reports.”

    1. Economic rebound has almost nothing to do with The Donald. Learn some modern economics.

      1. David, I think your econ books need updating. You are a couple of centuries behind. The economists of your kind like Malthus are all dead.

  4. Nellie Ohr, Fusion GPS, FISA “Dossier” Warrant, Bruce Ohr, Sally Yates, Christopher Steele, Hillary Clinton, Robert Mueller, Barack Obama star in

    “Counter-Intelligence or Democrat/Hillary Political Opposition Research.”

    Coming soon to a Congressional investigation near you.

      1. wildbill99 – that would be the flag used by the Democratic Party to keep blacks on the plantation.

        1. Paul, are you saying that Blacks are just plain stupid? It sounds that way considering that the vast majority of Black politicians are Democrats. How could they be so confused??

          1. Peter Hill – the Democratic Party has not done anything for them and still has them on the plantation. I am not sure what the problem is. Maybe they have Stockholm syndrome.

            1. Paul, you’re quite mistaken. Democrats have done so much for Blacks I don’t know where to start. But let’s take Education, for instance.

              During Obama’s time in office, the Department of Education was very close to shutting down the entire industry of For-Profit Colleges. For-Profit Colleges had largely targeted Blacks and Hispanics with intensive advertising.

              Any Black or Hispanic unlucky enough to respond to said ads were treated to high-pressure sales tactics that all hinged on Federally-Funded student loans. Callers were assured that schools could easily arrange the loans. And the education would help them find ‘good jobs’ so they could ‘easily repay said loans’.

              But For-Profit Colleges have dismally low graduation rates. And even those who graduate discover that For-Profit College degrees mean nothing to employers. No one’s going to hire a Nurse, for instance, with only a For-Profit College degree. Because of dropout rates, and worthless degrees, For-Profit-Colleges have been parasites, not just to the Federal Student Loan program, but to the Black and Hispanic communities.

              For-Profit Colleges are such parasites that the Department Of Defense considers them a major nuisance. A shocking of number of discharged soldiers have wasted their student benefits on For-Profit Colleges. But towards the end of Obama’s presidency, the For-Profit College industry was largely endangered. New requirements from Obama’s Education Department was strangling the industry.

              But since Betsy DeVos took charge, The Department of Education has actually hired several former executives of the For-Profit Colleges. DeVos is currently doing everything possible to restore that industry. Like we really need those parasites sucking at the public trough again! ‘Drain The Swamp’..?? What a joke!! One should note that Donald Trump ran a For-Proift College that was sued out of business.

              One should also note that For-Profit Colleges account for a disproportionate share of the Student Debt Bomb, a very real and looming crisis.

              1. Peter Hill – you ever attend a for-profit? I have. The Univ of Phx. Their schedule matched mine and the price was not much more than ASU. The Democrats just stopped an avenue of education.

                1. All that student loan money would be better spent on community colleges.

                  1. Peter Hill – community colleges around here are not allowed to offer graduate level classes.

                  2. Paul, allow me to expand on this. Because this topic you raised, Civil War politics is current the subject of a movie by an East Indian immigrant. Which is interesting because East indians weren’t a major presence here during the Civil War.

                    Yet this ‘filmmaker’ wants to dredge up the Civil War as a Culture Wars talking point. Something to throw in the faces of Democrats. Like things aren’t tense enough, we need to talk Civil War.

                    A liberal filmmaker could make a movie called “Financial Criss”. Film would follow a narrative that every time markets crash Republican presidents preside.

                    We could start with the Crash of ’29. Hoover’s response. How recession became a depression. We then fast forward to the Reagan-Bush years. The stock market crashes in ’87. That event is followed by The Savings And Loan Crisis; a major government bailout. Several prosecutions.

                    Fast forward to Bush II. The Accounting Crisis arises after 9/11. Enron’s collapse is followed by Global Crossing, Worldcom, Adelphia and others. Republicans make no attempt to impose new regulations. The Accounting Crisis is followed by The Invasion of Iraq. The former was soon forgotten as Iraq became a nightmare.

                    Years of surging consumer debt and the weaponization of derivatives leads to a big crash in September of ’08. A serious recession follows which Republicans blame on Obama!

                    1. The problem for Shill is that Dinesh D’Souza didn’t have to work very hard to make the links and didn’t have to play timing games. His history is reasonable. How many Dixiecrats became Republican? Only one, the rest remained in the Democratic Party. The great Democratic President Woodrow Wilson was a racist.

                    2. Paul, though I believe FDR had significant biases I don’t know that he was a racist. We have to take time and place into account. Maybe in today’s world I would reconsider but in 1945, I don’t know.

                    3. Allan – I was doing research in the Arizona State Archives and ran across one of his letters by accident, It had to do with the CCC. At least in Arizona, they were not allowed to hire blacks for the CCC. FDR had signed it.

                    4. Paul, in my mind a single signature doesn’t prove anything. Context and a larger span of time is more important.

                      Purity of man doesn’t exist.

                    5. Allan – check out the pictures of the CCC and look for all the integrated photos. Like I said, it was only for Arizona. Don’t know about other states.

                    6. Allan – I saw her interviewed by David Harris, Jr. They actually sent out a bat-signal to get more people. Luckily, the cops were on their side. For a change, the cops are not taking the side of Antifa.

                    7. Paul, Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens are great people. I remember the day when Candace signed up with Turning Point USA that Kirk founded at about age 18. That was a great day. There are a lot of young people doing great things.

        2. I know that Paul.

          From the end of the Civil War to the modern Civil Rights era it was Southern Democrats who fought to maintain racial subjugation of Black Americans. It took a bipartisan effort of Republicans and National Democrats to effect the Civil Rights reforms of the 1960’s. Credit where it is due.

      2. “Crazy Abe” Lincoln would like to say a few words.

        Go ahead, Abe.


        “If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” After acknowledging that this plan’s “sudden execution is impossible,” he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”

        1. George –

          “Tact: the ability to describe others as they see themselves.” Abraham Lincoln.

        2. from the famous Lincoln Douglas debates.
          and he was a Liberia supporter too. but why remember such things, best to forget truth and accept well agreed upon fantasies, so we can avoid upsetting folks

    1. Oh, oh!

      Looks like I hit a nerve.

      The truth of the most prodigious scandal in American political history is unfolding before our very eyes and the communists (i.e.

      democrats, progressives, liberals, socialists) are trying their best to produce a massive smoke screen by conducting a fraudulent

      “malicious prosecution.”

      Something tells me that the truth will out.

      Has anyone noticed that Google and Facebook are now taking orders from the Communist Chinese?

      The ultimate goal of the democrats, progressives, liberals and socialists is to nullify the Constitution and impose communism.

      Democrats, liberals, progressives and socialists will remove their costumes any day.

      The “Nouveau Communiste.”

      1. I don’t know about hitting s nerve, but it sure seems like you’ve been hitting a pipe.

        This is to “When things get to rollin’, I do tequila shots with a life size hannity mannequin” crazy georgie



    A woman who once ran an upscale New York City escort service will appear on Friday before a federal grand jury that is hearing evidence in the wide-ranging inquiry into ties between Russia and President Trump’s 2016 election campaign, according to a person familiar with the matter.

    The woman, Kristin M. Davis, was interviewed last week by officials from the office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who is looking into the Trump campaign’s links to Russian operatives. While it remains unclear what interest Mr. Mueller and his prosecutors have in Ms. Davis, it is unusual for an interview to be followed so closely by the more formal step of a grand jury appearance, suggesting that investigators are eager to get her testimony on the record.

    One possible line of inquiry is Ms. Davis’s longstanding connections to Roger J. Stone Jr., a veteran political consultant and Trump adviser who has himself become a central subject in the Russia probe. Mr. Stone, a self-described “dirty trickster” whose career in politics reaches back to the Nixon administration, was in contact before the election with Guccifer 2.0, an online avatar that Mr. Mueller’s team has said Russian military intelligence officers controlled. Guccifer 2.0 was instrumental in helping WikiLeaks publish stolen emails and other campaign documents that proved damaging to Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid and to the Democratic Party.

    Known in New York tabloids as the “Manhattan Madam,” Ms. Davis is perhaps best remembered for having claimed in 2008 that she provided escorts to Eliot Spitzer, who resigned that same year as governor of New York after The New York Times reported that he had become ensnared by a federal investigation into a different prostitution ring. Mr. Spitzer has denied any ties to Ms. Davis, 43, who spent four months on Rikers Island for running her escort service.

    Edited from: “Ex-Manhattan Madam To Appear Before Grand Jury In Russia Investigation”

    Today’s NEW YORK TIMES


        1. It’s hilarious that they’ve got a photo of Roger Stone in a business suit walking with said madam.

          1. From the NY Times article:

            “Last week, Mr. Stone said in a statement that he is the godfather of Ms. Davis’s child and that he had been her “friend and associate” for many years. Ms. Davis hired Mr. Stone in 2010 as a political strategist when she launched her own campaign for governor of New York. She later did administrative work in Mr. Stone’s office.”

            1. i have noticed that a lot of liberals actually have the souls of puritans, always tut tutting others and looking down their nose at sex workers. that is unless they are “helping them.”
              here you are on display showing your puritanical arrogance again.

          2. Peter,…
            – If you want to see something funny, track down the SNL Spoof of Spitzer making a statement, with his semi- supportive, suspicious wife at his side.

            1. even though he was a Democrat, Spitzer was a pretty good prosecutor. that’s probably why he was exposed. the puritans are always on the move against normal people having sex!

              it’s amazing to me that the most perverse individuals today can play saint and wag the finger at people like trump or spitzer who had some normal famous guy style dalliances.

          3. The slimeballs who revolve around Trump…
            Manafort, Gates, Stone…
            There’s a trio for you.

            1. The slimeballs who revolved around Obama

              Bill Ayers, the Reverand Wright, Resko

              There’s a trio for you.

              Anyone who is a conservative would be cheering for Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee now on the bench. They would also be cheering for his second Supreme Court nominee hopefully soon to be on the bench. I expect to hear cheers from wildbull who claims to be a conservative. Elizabeth Warren claims to be American Indian. Conservatives who didn’t vote for Trump are nonetheless vocally happy about these two justices.

              1. It must stink that the only way available to defending Trump is to play “What-about???”.
                BTW meso one of the advantages of being a #NeverTrumper is that you ever need to defend President Obama or the Clintons.

                1. wildbil99 – one of the nice things about supporting Trump is knowing he can defend himself. 😉

                2. It really stinks to hoisted up on your own categorical statement with a single counter-example that decimates them but, hey, you keep up the cliche responses. You look hip to the amateur debaters.

                    1. Allan – I think Alexander the Great did that when he ended his travels (conquests). He declared victory and went home.

                3. Really? ‘If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor’ Lies like that need no retrospective analysis.

                  Trump unemployment 3.9, GDP 4.1 Speaks for itself but somehow the left then says Obama was responsible when that is garbage. That is how Obama’s name ends up being compared.

          4. you guys are not very deep. Stone is a publically admitted libertine. Let me explain that for you, it may exceed the scope of your ken. He is an admitted swinger, or at least he used to be. and a marijuana legalization advocate. he is not likely to be very shamed by a nice picture like that.

            also his sartorial excellence is well known.


    2. so what big deal who cares

      except, damn that suit he’s wearing looks good

      and so does she!

  6. Paul, in a recent comment, without anything to back it up.**

    “Paul C Schulte says: August 7, 2018 at 1:05 PM

    Allan – check Drudge today for a new voting scandal. 😉 247% more people voted than are registered in the precinct.”

    Matt Drudge, linking to a Daily Beast Article by Sam Stein:

    “New Poll: 43% of Republicans Want to Give Trump the Power to Shut Down Media”

    “The “enemy of the people” talk is working. A plurality of self-identified Republicans say they want Trump to have the power to take “bad” media outlets out.”

    “In one of the poll’s few silver linings for the press, 57 percent of all respondents said that they believed news and reporters were “necessary to keep the Trump administration honest” including a plurality of Republicans (39 percent agreeing with that statement compared to 35 percent disagreeing). A slightly less robust 46 percent of respondents said they agreed that “most news outlets try their best to produce honest reporting” (compared to 35 percent who disagreed). And virtually everyone (85 percent of respondents) believed that “freedom of the press is essential for American democracy” (compared to 4 percent opposed to that statement).

    “But despite support for journalistic principles in the abstract, respondents also seemed inclined to believe that reporters had too much professional protection. According to the survey, 72 percent of all respondents agree it should be easier to sue reporters who knowingly publish false information, including 85 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of Democrats.”

    (**Back it up, Paul.)

      1. The devil is in the details, of course — and it sounds like one big hot mess — one that is apparently “defended” by Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brian Kemp — a Republican.

        “Georgia is one of four states that uses voting machines statewide that produce no paper record for voters to verify, making them difficult to audit, experts say.” -from the link supplied by Paul

        Excerpt from the linked article supplied by Paul. (Thanks.)

        McClatchy DC Bureau:

        “Some issues, like the freezing machines, could be chalked up to the the age of the polling infrastructure, said Harri Hursti, a computer programmer who studies election cybersecurity.

        “But others, like the incorrect ballots, could have been caused by anything from a clerical error to a malicious manipulation of voter data, said Hursti, who is also the organizer for the Voting Village at hacking conference DEF CON, where participants demonstrate hacking into some state voting machines.

        “It’s possible that there’s a connection between the security issues reported at Georgia’s Center for Election Systems and the issues chronicled in the court statements, but an immediate switch to paper ballots is necessary regardless, Hursti said.

        ““But the connection is not needed,” he said. “You don’t need to have a smoking gun to do the right thing.”

        “In a statement, the office of Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp defended the security of state elections.

        ““Alongside federal, local, and private sector partners, we continue to fight every day to ensure secure and accurate elections in Georgia that are free from interference. To this day, due to the vigilance, dedication, and hard work of those partners, our elections system and voting equipment remain secure,” spokeswoman Candice Broce wrote in an email.

        “Kemp has set up a bipartisan commission to look into changing state voting machines ahead of the 2020 elections, but not in time for the midterm elections this November.

        “Marilyn Marks, the executive director of the Coalition for Good Government, which has led the charge against the state’s management of the election system, said the statements filed in federal court are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to voter complaints.

        ““We are submitting only a small sample from scores of known system malfunctions and irregularities,” she wrote in an email. “But those examples should raise alarms with officials, political parties, candidates and voters. Something is terribly wrong at a systemic level, and is not being taken seriously by Secretary Kemp, or the state and counties’ election boards charged with conducting secure elections.”

        “The court statements are the latest additions to the growing list of concerns surrounding Georgia’s election security.

        “In July, Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment indicated that Russian operatives charged with hacking into Democrats’ emails also visited county election websites in Georgia, among other states.

        “Kennesaw State University’s Center for Election Systems, which was responsible for running Georgia’s elections, was proven vulnerable by friendly cybersecurity experts both before and after the 2016 elections.”

        As I said: one big hot mess. And Paul’s headline — without more information — is misleading.

          1. So, “…it appeared that 276 registered voters managed to cast 670 ballots… (In fact it was later corrected to show 3,704 registered voters in the precinct.)”


            “McClatchy’s data comes from a federal lawsuit filed against the state. In addition to the problem in Habersham County’s Mud Creek precinct, where it appeared that 276 registered voters managed to cast 670 ballots, the piece describes numerous other issues with both voter registration and electronic voting machines. (In fact it was later corrected to show 3,704 registered voters in the precinct.)

            “Multiple sworn statements from voters describe how they turned up at their polling stations only to be turned away or directed to other precincts. Even more statements allege incorrect ballots, frozen voting machines, and other issues.”

            Also, according to one of the comments:

            “Habersham County went -overwhelmingly- red in the 2016 election…”

    1. Poor Oky and the rest of the demented losers who rely on Infowars for their news.

      1. No worries for Jones fans – he’s still live on Twitter. Very odd IMO that he didn’t get a Twitter ban….

        1. Still to come, couldn’t happen to a more deserving lying douchebag.

        1. Mr. Kurtz,

          I can do the water filters & a bunch of the other products, but suggest use of the super male vitality/.. partner …female v only if need. lol Rrrrr are you happy see me or an iron pipe in your pants. LOL

          And I didn’t like the bubblegum toothpaste, but I’ll stick with the super blue

    2. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t follow Alex Jones except when it is posted here but some of what he does is exactly what the NYTimes has done. Try extracting fact from the media on both sides. Remove what is false and then you might have an approximation of the news.

      1. Allan – FWIW – Jimmy Dore, a Progressive, who literally spit on Alex Jones during the Republican Convention (!) comes to his defense.

        1. There is nothing wrong with defending a person’s right to free speech whether one agrees with the speech or not.

      2. he was ahead of the curve on gay frogs and human animal chimeras. it sounds silly but yeah

        1. Mr. Kurtz, I don’t think you are trying to say his speech should be curtailed, are you?

          1. oh hell no. he should have access to appleFBgoog and spotify. hell yes. not a first amendment issue but more like a public access to utilities issue.

            i like alex jones as an entertainer. i have no problem saying that.

            1. Ugh for Alex Jones, but support his freedom of speech.

              I know too many highly educated people including writers that have been thrown off of various forms of media and blacklisted because of their ideas that are totally non-violent and support America.

              1. ironically the one I really like on Jones’ show is Roger Stone a regular guest and the subject of the column, to some degree, so Peter’s mention was not off target, for once

                1. OMG did I just “discredit” myself to the whiners here! Boo hoo, i take it back, i confess, I am a reactionary!


      Jones is currently facing five separate defamation suits. He has been accused of knowingly spreading false information about the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting this year, the violence in Charlottesville, Va., last year and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012. Three of the defamation cases have been filed by families of Sandy Hook victims.

      When the tech companies recently started pushing back on Infowars, Jones, a syndicated radio host, released a video in which he encouraged his audience to go directly to his website and sign up for its newsletter.

      “So there’s no way the censors can get between us,” he said.

      On Monday, Jones stated that “America has been sold out,” and the Infowars Twitter feed declared that the moves against his company were “communist style censorship.”

      Edited from: ‘YouTube, Apple and Facebook Ban Infowars, Which Decries ‘Mega Purge'”.

      8/6/18, NPR

      1. Wonder if Nominally Public Radio will cover this story about FB wanting bank info access?

      2. alex jones is american samizdat

        look that one up since you like kompromat so much

  7. I wonder if this information was provided to FISA

    Judicial Watch: FBI Records Show Dossier Author Deemed ‘Not Suitable For Use’ as Source, Show Several FBI Payments in 2016

    AUGUST 03, 2018

    Documents Reveal Steele Was Admonished in February, 2016

    (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today the FBI turned over 70 pages of heavily redacted records about Christopher Steele, the former British spy, hired with Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee funds, who authored the infamous Dossier targeting President Trump during last year’s presidential campaign. The documents show that Steele was cut off as a “Confidential Human Source” (CHS) after he disclosed his relationship with the FBI to a third party. The documents show at least 11 FBI payments to Steele in 2016 and document that he was admonished for unknown reasons in February, 2016. The documents were turned over in response to Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for records of communications and payments between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and his private firm, Orbis Business Intelligence (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-00916)).

    The documents include a “source closing communication” that states that Steele (referred to as “CHS” or Confidential Human Source) “is being closed” because:

    CHS confirmed to an outside third party that CHS has a confidential relationship with the FBI. CHS was used as a source for an online article. In the article, CHS revealed CHS’ relationship with the FBI as well as information that CHS obtained and provided to FBI. On November 1, 2016, CHS confirmed all of this to the handling agent. At that time, handling agent advised CHS that the nature of the relationship between the FBI and CHS would change completely and that it was unlikely that the FBI would continue a relationship with the CHS. Additionally, handling agent advised that CHS was not to operate to obtain any intelligence whatsoever on behalf of the FBI.

    The documents also show that Steele was paid repeatedly by the FBI and was “admonished” for some unknown misconduct in February, 2016. The documents include:

    Fifteen (15) FD-1023, Source Reports.
    Thirteen (13) FD-209a, Contact Reports.
    Eleven (11) FD-794b, Payment Requests. (It appears Steele was paid money eleven of the thirteen times he met with the FBI and gave them information.)
    An Electronic Communication (EC) documenting that on February 2, 2016, Steele was admonished in accordance with the Justice Department guidelines and the FBI CHS Policy Manual.
    The documents were obtained as a result of a lawsuit was filed after the Department of Justice failed to respond to a March 8, 2017, FOIA request seeking:

    All records of communications between any official, employee, or representative of the FBI and Mr. Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer and the owner of the private firm Orbis Business Intelligence.
    All records related to the proposed, planned, or actual payment of any funds to Mr. Steele and/or Orbis Business Intelligence.
    All records produced in preparation for, during, or pursuant to any meetings or telephonic conversations between any official, employee, or representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Mr. Christopher Steele and/or any employee or representative of Orbis Business Intelligence.
    “These new docs show the shady, cash-based relationship the Obama FBI had with Clinton operative Christopher Steele,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The anti-Trump Russia ‘investigation’ had Christopher Steele at its center and his misconduct was no impediment to using information from his Russia intelligence collaborators to spy on the Trump team. The corruption and abuse is astonishing.”

    Last week, a separate Judicial Watch lawsuit uncovered the FISA warrant documents used to justify spying on Carter Page. The warrants are controversial because the FISA court was never told that the key information justifying the requests came from a “dossier” that was created by Fusion GPS, a paid agent of the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee. Fusion GPS hired Steele to create the Dossier and Steele is referenced repeatedly as “Source #1” in the warrants. The initial Carter Page warrant was granted just weeks before the 2016 election. Steele and his “minimally corroborated” Clinton-DNC dossier was an essential part of the FBI and DOJ’s applications for surveillance warrants to spy on Page.

    1. In which Allan shows his true extreme right colors. Here’s a site that was thrown up at me by a conservative on another site, criticizing some source I cited. What does it say about Judicial Watch–the worst! Goodbye, Allan! Your extreme right views are exposed! And you have the nerve to criticize the NYT and MoJo. You are a phony!

      1. hollywood – Judicial Watch has gotten more with their FOIA requests and lawsuits than anybody else.

                  1. hollywood – I am going to take a big jump here and say that media bias is biased. 🙂

                    1. Media bias was thrown at me for my cites, Paul. And I have to confess, it’s a little right biased but largely fair.

                1. Paul, why didn’t you copy a tidbit of information to wet his appetite?

                  “‘Fact checking’ website Snopes on verge of collapse after founder is accused of fraud, lies, and putting prostitutes and his honeymoon on expenses (and it hasn’t told its readers THOSE facts)”

                  “Fact-checking website Snopes is on the verge of financial collapse after its owner was accused of embezzling company funds to pay for his contentious divorce battle and lavish overseas trips with his new wife, a former Las Vegas escort and porn actress.”

                  The article also shows some pictures some of a racy female. Perhaps Hollowood is in one of those pictures.

                2. paul stop with the facts and truth! they can’t take it.

                  “fact checker” is also married to a former porn star but I don’t hold that against her
                  a sexy redhead if I recall correctly

                  1. Mr Kurtz – I was paid to fact check history books for Pearson. Hard to get it out of your system. 😉

                    1. Allan – I did a section on Mohammed and had to send it back to be rewritten because it was written like that. Those paras would not have gotten by me without a rewrite.

                    2. Paul, I am glad you were able to read through the dialogue. Look a little closer at this section of the blog and the teachers pdf to correct some of the problems already in books. Take a look at the movie and tell me what you think. You can also look around at the other sections.

                    3. Allan – my cardiologist wants me to keep my blood pressure down so I try not to get too agitated these days. 😉 Just the stuff in the clip was enough to have me running down the hall in a lather asking to see the writer. Normally, I would not do that. I would make the corrections and send them back. I just hoped they got corrected.

                    4. Paul, that is OK. I just thought you might be interested in looking not working. PDF’s for correction were made available to teachers and Pearson is having all new texts reviewed by the same people before being printed. A bunch of books were removed from the schools and a whole bunch of other things were done. That is the same group that published a book on Lawfare giving it to all the members of Congress.

                    5. Allan – sadly, Pearson has gone through some major overhauls in personnel since I left there. I only person I know is working IT and he is hoping to get retired early. 😉

                    6. Paul, I wasn’t looking for working support or anything of that nature. I just wanted your opinion both present and historical and I thought you might find the site interesting because of your past work.

            1. Hollowood doesn’t know how to read critically. For the most part, in the article quoted by Hollowood Snopes doesn’t disagree with the facts that Judicial Watch provides. Snopes tries to explain them to meet leftist spin requirements. That is why they say mixed results. The results are accurate but Snopes questions the implications that Snopes itself creates.

              Snopes says: “Such estimates do not encompass the entire U.S., are based on questionable methodologies, and may include voters who are listed on state rolls as “inactive.”

              However, nowhere do they dispute the direct numbers that demonstrate a higher number of registered voters than eligible adults.

              The solution is to clean up the registered voter rolls but that is something the left seems reluctant to do.

              Judicial Watch is to commended for releasing this information while Snopes should be condemned for its approach to spin what was revealed. Quoting Snopes: “Even if these numbers are assumed to be accurate…” then comes the spin.

              1. Allan – check Drudge today for a new voting scandal. 😉 247% more people voted than are registered in the precinct.

                1. Imagine Hollowood’s surprise but Snopes will find a way to spin the news and Hollowood will fall for it.

                  He is a fool.

                2. So,” it appeared that 276 registered voters managed to cast 670 ballots… (In fact it was later corrected to show 3,704 registered voters in the precinct.)


                  “McClatchy’s data comes from a federal lawsuit filed against the state. In addition to the problem in Habersham County’s Mud Creek precinct, where it appeared that 276 registered voters managed to cast 670 ballots, the piece describes numerous other issues with both voter registration and electronic voting machines. (In fact it was later corrected to show 3,704 registered voters in the precinct.)

                  “Multiple sworn statements from voters describe how they turned up at their polling stations only to be turned away or directed to other precincts. Even more statements allege incorrect ballots, frozen voting machines, and other issues.”

                  Also, according to one of the comments:

                  “Habersham County went -overwhelmingly- red in the 2016 election….curious how the voter fraud commission didn’t pick this up….?”

          1. Are the emails and documents Judicial Watch has received from the FBI and elsewhere fraudulent as well?

            You are a fool.

          1. hollywood – I do think which is why I do not use Wikipedia as a source. BTW, if you are using Chrome there is an app that connects to the Encyclopedia Britannica. I try to use that instead for broad range information.

            1. Great, but that does not dispute that Judicial Watch is a biased fraud.

              1. hollywood – Judicial Watch might be biased, but they are not frauds. And they have done a lot of FOIAs on the Trump Administration.

            2. So, Paul, I go to EB. I search Christopher Steele. I search FISA warrants. I search both. Nada. Good night, Paul, Your app/cite has nada. Allan is a fraud.

              1. Judicial watch obtains raw data. That is what they do best but that data is frequently withheld. I don’t know what your objection is to the actual files that are supposed to be in the public domain. That includes emails but I am sure emails is a touchy subject for you since Hillary tried to destroy her hard disk to hide those emails.

                The public has a right to know whether it be GWB, Obama, Hillary or Trump. What is your objection to the FOIA requests and the data those requests lead to?

            3. Paul C, Schulte,
              If there are specific documents cited in a comment alleging or stating certain things, the sensible way to dispute them is with facts, if that ability exists.
              A “challenge” in the form of statement like ” you’re showing your true extreme right wing colors”, or an article from Wikipedia!?!😊😀😂 just doesn’t cut it.

            4. wiki is a decent starting point, really, even though it’s curated by a bunch of pc nogoodniks

              1. Mr Kurtz – with Wikipedia you have a 50/50 shot you will get correct information. Basically, you are flipping a coin. By adding an app to Chrome you get Britannica which is higher rated.

        1. PC Schulte,..
          I haven’t followed some of these exchanges real closely.
          I noticed above that documents were cited by Allen, and I suppose that your observation about Judicial Watch gaining release of many docunents is correct.
          The NY Times, along with Carter Page, has requested release of the FISA warrant application on surveillance of Page.
          What is interesting, but not surprising, that Allan cited documents in his comment and that “Hollywood” did not refute what was in those documents, he did not acknowledge the documents or refer to them in any way in his “reply”.
          Instead, Holywood’s “reply ” consisted of a comment that Allan’s “extreme right wing views have been exposed”.
          I had a different set of reasons for concluding that Hollywood is a liar and a chicken**** weasel.
          I’ve gone over those reasons and noted that “Hollywood” saved time by showing his true colors early on…it was pretty hard to miss that Hollywood was just another low-life troll in the way.
          The reason that assessment is repeatedly confirmed by Hollywood can be found in the exchange above.

          1. Yopu are nonsense. i exposed Allan as a fraud on the Trump Foundation. Do I have to do all your work for you?

            1. None of the documents cited by Allan were refuted or acknowledge d by Hollywood; he attempted to dismiss them by a naking a silly-ass comment about “true right wing colors.”
              That’s not “doing the work; it is more typical troll crap from Hollywood.

              1. I completely refuted Allan on the Trump Foundation. How many time do I have to do this. the guy is a fraud. And you, likewise, fellow traveler.

                1. OMG, “a fellow traveler”😧😩
                  Our Hollywood star seems to have made his debut here on July 5 th.
                  He was plastering limks all over the place, then bitched about the First Amendment not applying here.
                  Some of his comments were not posting, and he decides that’s because of a First Amendment violation.
                  That’s kind of a strange conclusion to draw, especially for someone who is apparently new to these comment sections.
                  Anyway, Darren explains to him that there is a limit of two links per comment, so I guess he’s reassured of his “First Amendment rights”.
                  I didn’t count the total number of links that he posted….I think it was in that thread that I mentioned that if a commentator keeps posting thread after thread, it’s more likely that readers will pass over all of them; people don’t have all day to read all the links posted here, and a “compulsive linker” is more likely to find his links unread.
                  There was a short NPR link which I did open and read, since it was a short read.
                  I commented to him on the NPR link he posted, and he replied to my comment where I referred to the NPR.
                  He then accuses of not reading the NPR link; I think it should go without saying that he should read the comments of those he’s engaging in exchanges.
                  I told him that I did read the NPR link, then he calls me liar.
                  Between the whining about “the First Amendment”, then calling me a liar, it didn’t take long to figure out that our Hollywood star is going out of his way to be an ******* on his opening night.
                  When the format was redesigned here, I think by JT’s son, I commented that I liked the looks of it, but noted that there was no longer a time-stamp on comments.
                  That can cause some confusion, especially when comments are post way out of sequence( e.g., you might reply to a comment and your reply is posted 50 comments away).
                  I remember the sequence very well with the Hollywood clown.
                  It was very, very hard to ignore the evidence that is still on that thread, in the archives, that I read and commented on that NPR link he posted.
                  I know that everybody has their “pet peeves”; with me, I just happen to despise chicken**** weasels and liars like Hollywood.
                  I’ve gone over this before, my reasons for having 0 respect for that fool.
                  But as “a fellow traveler”😊😃, I thought I’d review it again.

                  1. Should be ” posting link after link, not ” posting thread after thread”.

                  2. No, you didn’t Hollowood. You didn’t even review Trump’s IRS forms. What you provided were unproven claims and some of the claims made have been debunked. As has been mentioned before minor items might be found but they lead to civil fines, not a criminal action. If one were to examine all of the 1 million-plus trusts of this nature (?1.4 million) one would likely find errors on most of them.

                    You are a fool.

                  3. Tom the fellow traveler is a low-life hack that regurgitates left-wing propaganda and never reviews original sources. Over and over again he says stupid things and makes stupid accusations never dealing in facts that are already proven.

                    Hollowood is a fool.

                    1. I don’t know what the hell the Trump Foundation has to do with Judicial Watch and the recent release of the FISA warrant application on Carter Page and other document but I’ll let someone else figure that out.
                      That FISA application was one of the main
                      items that Judicial Watch was after in the batch of documents that Allan mentioed earlier.
                      In the comments and exchanges above, it’s not clear if Hollywood is claiming that the documents released are fradulent? because Judicial Watch gained their release, or what the debate is about the documents.
                      If someone dislikes Judicial Watch, OK……but is the authenticity of the documents themselves being questioned?

                    2. “I don’t know what the hell the Trump Foundation has to do with Judicial Watch”

                      Tom it doesn’t but both JW and the IRS forms are hard data. Hollowood likes to deal with soft spin. He is a fool.

                    1. That comment by Anonymouse has nothing to do with the topic(s) under discussion.
                      Anonymous is not capable of participating in that discussion,and even IF that capability existed, Anonymous is to friggin lazy to do so.
                      So, Anonymous does what Anonymous has done for years… i.e., posts a vacuous comment that has nothing to do with the discussion, but does confirm the status of Anonymous as a troll and a Grade A ******.

                    2. Anonymous does not have to keep confirming what I’ve said about Anonymous, but is evidently compelled to do so.
                      So we get another sample of Anonymous’ great “contributions” to these threads.

                2. You can say you provided your opinion but you didn’t refute anything. I provided data from the non-profit’s IRS forms filed with the government. You are a liar, but more than that you are a fool.

            2. Hollowood, you keep calling me a fraud but most people recognize that I am truthful about the facts despite my opinions. We wait for you to tell us what facts I said were fraudulent. I have demonstrated over and over again what you said is wrong and you have been unable to refute those statements. It appears you are the fraud but more important you are a fool.

              1. who cares what he says. never lost a minute to refuting false claims by the oppfor. always attack and have fun every day. follow the example of the Avatar!

      2. You can remove all the opinion from the NYTimes, WP, and Judicial Watch. What is left is news, hopefully news that is factual. The problem with the NYTimes and WP is they don’t report all the news and some of that news is false. Judicial Watch might be viewed as “right-wing” but when one removes all the opinion one is left with the results of the FOIA requests that are then utilized by other media sources. That news is essentially raw data that others spin to contain the news damaging to the left that is prevalent today.

        I don’t ask anyone to believe Judicial Watch opinion. I only promote those things they obtained from the FOIA requests which are about the same as raw data since the FOIA requests contain the emails and papers that have led to the opinion being rendered by them and others. What I find amazing is that you use an extreme left-wing opinion to judge a right-wing opinion. One doesn’t have to have anyone judge for them. One can judge for themselves after reading the raw information that has been released. (That is similar to your problem regarding Trump’s tax return. You read your spin but you never bothered to read the actual return.)

        The data is at Judicial Watch’s site. It contains redacted copies of what they have received. The article above is mostly stating what has been received and what it means to them. Hollowood is at liberty to go their site and spin the news any way he wishes but I don’t think he has the ability and therefore relies almost entirely on spin experts to regurgitate the news to him.

        One of the important items being released is that Steele was being paid by the FBI. FOIA information comes in slower than it should and much of it is redacted. Some of the redactions later opened for scrutiny revealed that the redactions were not to protect national security but to protect the FBI or employees from embarrassment and perhaps prosecution.

        Hollowood is a fool.

      3. allan is not extreme right. I claim that spot.

        For the fight, we all stand prepared!

        1. I am more of a classical liberal mostly disinterested in political parties except when a party is promoting national suicide, violence or destruction.

    2. Allan, are you aware of the fact that February of 2016 occurred before November of 2016? Wait. Let me rephrase that: Do you not know that the Second month of a given year occurs before the Tenth month of that same year?

      P. S. All four FISA warrant applications for Carter Page were released to the public over a week ago. The FISC was fully informed about Steele’s contact with Michael Issikoff as well as the FBI’s decision to stop using Steele as a confidential informant because of his contact with Michael Issikoff. All that Judicial Watch did with the information you cited was substitute generic descriptors of Steele and Issikoff in place of their known names for the purpose of restating a question that had already been answered as though somehow that question had not yet been answered.

      P. S. S. Chances are that hollywood doesn’t know about your poor reading habits and therefore gives you way far too much credit when he calls you a fraud.

      1. Diane, your mind doesn’t seem to have adequate recall powers and certainly can’t focus. What I posted focussed on the FBI paying Steele.

      2. chances are nobody with a life reads as much as you but chacun a son gout

  8. The level of treachery exhibited by Attorney General Jeff Sessions is unfathomable.

    Jeff, how do you sleep at night?

    Jeff Sessions is the “tip of the spear” of the Obama Coup D’etat in America – the most prodigious scandal in American political history.

    How much did Obama pay you for your deceit and betrayal, Jeff?

Comments are closed.